DAYALU Vs. MANNULAL SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7-8-2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1-B/2006 by the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Tikamgarh whereby the judgment and decree dated 31-8-2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-B/2006 by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Jatara, District Tikamgarh, has been reversed. Facts giving rise to this revision in brief are, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,638/- with interest from the date of suit till the date of realization. It was contended in the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff was doing the business of purchase of grain. The applicant/defendant was also purchasing the grain seeds for the agriculture purposes. On 8-7-1998, applicant herein purchased 180 kilograms Soyabean from the respondent for which an amount of Rs. 1,260/- was to be paid. Since this amount was not paid up to 8-2-1999, with interest an amount of Rs. 1,638/- was to be recovered by the respondent/plaintiff from the applicant. On 22-7-1999 again the accounts were settled and since the respondent/plaintiff has made purchase of wheat from the applicant, after adjusting the amount outstanding towards the applicant, Rs. 6,000/- was paid by the father of the respondent/plaintiff to the applicant. However, the wheat so purchased by the respondent/plaintiff was loaded in a tractor and when it was being transported, the tractor was stopped on way and the wheat was taken back by the applicant. An F.I.R. to this effect was lodged and complaint was also made to the Superintendent of Police and Town Inspector by the respondent. Since, an amount of Rs. 6,000/- was to be recovered by the respondent/plaintiff from the applicant together with the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,638/-, thus, such a claim was made.

(2.) Denying the claim made by the respondent/plaintiff, a written statement was filed by the applicant categorically contending that no such wheat was ever purchased by the respondent/plaintiff nor any Soyabean was purchased by him on 8-7-1998. In fact the applicant has refused to sell any grain to the respondent/plaintiff because he was making the mischief in the payment of the price and was not paying the amount within time. When the applicant started selling the grains to other persons, the respondent/plaintiff threatened that he will rope the applicant in any false case.

(3.) The trial Court framed the issues and recorded evidence of the parties. The respondent/plaintiff produced a temporary receipt said to be written by him in the name of his father for payment of Rs. 6,000/- to the applicant. He produced a diary containing certain entries with respect to sale and purchase. However, nothing more evidence in writing was produced by the respondent/plaintiff. In his statement he admitted that he lodged a report in the police with respect to the incident, which has taken place on 2-7-1999. His witness also stated only this much that the payment was made by the father of the respondent/plaintiff to the applicant and wheat was loaded in a tractor but the tractor was stopped and the grain was taken back. The father of the respondent/plaintiff was examined and he also stated the same thing. In the cross-examination of PW-1 respondent/plaintiff, he admitted that there was no signature of applicant on the account diary maintained by the respondent/plaintiff. He further admitted that in some places in the said diary, the amount was acknowledged by putting signatures by some of the persons. He could not explain as to why signatures of applicant were not obtained on the said diary if any amount was outstanding towards the applicant. Again in Exhibit P-1 the receipt written by him, there is nothing written whether any amount was paid to the applicant, which was duly acknowledged by him. The fact relating to making of the report in the police with respect to the incident was admitted again in the cross-examination but the same was not produced in the evidence. He admitted that no case was registered by the Police. Same was the statement made by the other witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff, However, PW-2 Kunjilal and PW-3 Babloo stated that they came on the spot only when they were asked by the respondent/plaintiff. They further admitted that the applicant was the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat and was having good reputation in the area. Same was the statement with respect to the father of the respondent/plaintiff.